I like the controller.
Coordinator is a bit long for me to write and speak.
Manager and Admin is used somewhere yet in HBase.
------------------ ???????? ------------------
??????: "Andrew Purtell"<apurt...@apache.org>;
????????: 2020??6??26??(??????) ????9:08
??????: "Hbase-User"<user@hbase.apache.org>;
????: "dev"<d...@hbase.apache.org>;
????: Re: [DISCUSS] Removing problematic terms from our project
> - AdminServer (as you already have AdminClient to talk to it).
Oooooh... I like AdminServer. AdminServer (serving admin functions) and
RegionServer (serving region data).
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 4:46 PM Andrey Elenskiy
<andrey.elens...@arista.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Is there a word that's not "master" and not "coordinator" that is
clear
> and
> suitable for (diverse, polyglot) community?
>
> There are also:
> - captain (sounds pretty close to "master" without the negative side and it
> should be relatable around the world)
> - conductor (as in orchestra)
> - controller (in kafka controller assigns partitions)
> - RegionDriver (more relevant to what it's actually doing in hbase and
> borrowed from PlacementDrive of TiKV)
> - AdminServer (as you already have AdminClient to talk to it).
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:49 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > How about "manager"?
> >
> > (It would help me if folks could explain what is lacking in
> "coordinator".)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 13:32 Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@apache.org>
wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:14 PM ????(Duo Zhang)
<palomino...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > -0/+1/+1/+1
> > > >
> > > > I??m the one who asked whether ??master?? is safe to use
without ??slave??
> > in
> > > > the private list.
> > > >
> > > > I??m still not convinced that it is really necessary and I
do not
> think
> > > > other words like ??coordinator?? can fully describe the
role of HMaster
> > in
> > > > HBase. HBase is more than 10 years old. In the context of
HBase, the
> > word
> > > > ??HMaster?? has its own meaning. Changing the name will
hurt our users
> > and
> > > > make them confusing, especially for us non native English
speakers...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is there a word that's not "master" and not "coordinator" that
is clear
> > and
> > > suitable for (diverse, polyglot) community?
> > >
> > > Stack <st...@duboce.net>??2020??6??25?? ????06:34??????
> > > >
> > > > > +1/+1/+1/+1 where hbase3 adds the deprecation and
hbase4 follows
> > hbase3
> > > > > soon after sounds good to me. I'm up for working on
this.
> > > > > S
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:26 PM Xu Cang
<xuc...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Strongly agree with what Nick said here:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " From my perspective, we gain nothing as a
project or as a
> > > community
> > > > be
> > > > > > willfully retaining use of language that is well
understood to be
> > > > > > problematic or hurtful,.... On the contrary, we
have much to gain
> > by
> > > > > > encouraging
> > > > > > contributions from as many people as possible."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 to Andrew's proposal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It might be good to have a source of truth web
page or README
> file
> > > for
> > > > > > developers and users to refer to regarding all
naming
> transitions.
> > > It's
> > > > > > going to help both developers changing the code
and users looking
> > for
> > > > > some
> > > > > > answers online that use old namings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Xu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:21 PM Nick Dimiduk <
> ndimi...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 13:11 Sean Busbey
<bus...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to make sure I am
emphatically clear that
> "master"
> > > by
> > > > > > itself
> > > > > > > > is not okay if the context is the same
as what would normally
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > > > > master/slave context. Furthermore our
use of master is
> clearly
> > > > such a
> > > > > > > > context.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree: to me ??Master??, as in ??HMaster??
caries with it the
> > > > > master/slave
> > > > > > > baggage. As an alternative, I prefer the
term ??coordinator??
> over
> > > > > > ??leader??.
> > > > > > > Thus we would have daemons called
??coordinator?? and ??region
> > > server??.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To me, ??master?? as in ??master branch??
does not carry the same
> > > > baggage,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > I??m also in favor changing the name of our
default branch to a
> > word
> > > > > that
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > less conflicted. I see nothing that we gain
as a community by
> > > > > continuing
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > use this word.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems to me we have, broadly speaking,
consensus around
> making
> > > > > *some*
> > > > > > > > changes. I haven't seen a strong push
for "break everything
> in
> > > the
> > > > > name
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > expediency" (I would personally be fine
with this). So
> barring
> > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > discussion that favors breaking
changes, current approaches
> > > should
> > > > > > > comport
> > > > > > > > with our existing project compatibility
goals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe we could stop talking about
what-ifs and look at actual
> > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > examples? If anyone is currently up for
doing the work of a
> PR
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > at for one of these?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If folks would prefer we e.g. just say
"we should break
> > whatever
> > > we
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > in 3.0.0 to make this happen" then it
would be good to speak
> > up.
> > > > > > > Otherwise
> > > > > > > > likely we would be done with needed
changes circa hbase 4,
> > > probably
> > > > > > late
> > > > > > > > 2021 or 2022.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 03:03 zheng wang
<18031...@qq.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > IMO, master is ok if not used with
slave together.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -1/+1/+1/+1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
------------------&nbsp;????????&nbsp;------------------
> > > > > > > > > ??????:&nbsp;"Andrew
Purtell"<apurt...@apache.org&gt;;
> > > > > > > > >
????????:&nbsp;2020??6??23??(??????) ????5:24
> > > > > > > > >
??????:&nbsp;"Hbase-User"<user@hbase.apache.org&gt;;
> > > > > > > > >
????:&nbsp;"dev"<d...@hbase.apache.org&gt;;
> > > > > > > > > ????:&nbsp;Re: [DISCUSS]
Removing problematic terms from our
> > > > project
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In observing something like voting
happening on this thread
> > to
> > > > > > express
> > > > > > > > > alignment or not, it might be
helpful to first, come up
> with
> > a
> > > > list
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > terms to change (if any), and then
propose replacements,
> > > > > > individually.
> > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > far we might break this apart into
four proposals:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Replace "master"/"hmaster" with
??? ("coordinator" is
> one
> > > > > option),
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > one has by far the most
significant impact and both opinion
> > and
> > > > > > > > > interpretation on this one is
mixed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. Replace "slave" with
"follower", seems to impact the
> cross
> > > > > cluster
> > > > > > > > > replication subsystem only.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. Replace "black list" with "deny
list".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4. Replace "white list" with
"accept list".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps if you are inclined to
respond with a +1/-1/+0/-0,
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > useful to give such an indication
for each line item above.
> > Or,
> > > > > offer
> > > > > > > > > alternative proposals. Or, if you
have a singular opinion,
> > > that's
> > > > > > fine
> > > > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM
Geoffrey Jacoby <
> > > > > gjac...@apache.org
> > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > &gt; For most of the proposals
(slave -&gt; worker,
> blacklist
> > > > -&gt;
> > > > > > > > > denylist,
> > > > > > > > > &gt; whitelist-&gt;
allowlist), I'm +1 (nonbinding).
> Denylist
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > acceptlist even
> > > > > > > > > &gt; have the advantage of
being clearer than the terms
> > they're
> > > > > > > > replacing.
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; However, I'm not
convinced about changing "master" to
> > > > > > > "coordinator",
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > &gt; something similar. Unlike
"slave", which is negative
> in
> > > any
> > > > > > > context,
> > > > > > > > > &gt; "master" has many
definitions, including some common
> > ones
> > > > > which
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > &gt; appear problematic. See
> > > > > > > > >
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
> > > > > > > > > &gt
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master&gt
> >;
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > &gt; examples. In particular,
the progression of an artisan
> > was
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > &gt; "apprentice" to
"journeyman" to "master". A master
> > smith,
> > > > > > > carpenter,
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > &gt; artist would run a shop
managing lots of workers and
> > > > > apprentices
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > &gt; hope to become masters of
their own someday. So
> "master"
> > > and
> > > > > > > > "worker"
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > &gt; still go together.
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; Since it's the least
problematic term, and by far the
> > > > hardest
> > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > &gt; change (both within HBase
and with effects on
> downstream
> > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > such as
> > > > > > > > > &gt; Ambari), I'm -0
(nonbinding) on changing "master".
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; Geoffrey
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at
1:32 PM Rushabh Shah
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
<rushabh.s...@salesforce.com.invalid&gt; wrote:
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; +1 to renaming.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; Rushabh Shah
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - Software Engineering SMTS |
> > > > > Salesforce
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; - Mobile:
213
> > 422
> > > > > 9052
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; On Mon, Jun 22,
2020 at 1:18 PM Josh Elser <
> > > > > > > els...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; +1
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; On
6/22/20 4:03 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; We should change our use of these
> terms.
> > We
> > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > equally or more
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; clear
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; in
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; what we are trying to convey where they
> > are
> > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; That they have been used historically
> is
> > > only
> > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > if the advantage
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; we
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; gain from using them through that
> shared
> > > > > context
> > > > > > > > > outweighs the
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; potential
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; friction they add. They make me
> > personally
> > > > less
> > > > > > > > > enthusiastic about
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; contributing. That's enough friction
> for
> > me
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > advocate removing
> > > > > > > > > &gt; them.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; AFAICT reworking our replication stuff
> in
> > > > terms
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > "active" and
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; "passive"
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; clusters did not result in a big spike
> of
> > > > folks
> > > > > > > > asking
> > > > > > > > > new questions
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; about
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; where authority for state was.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, 13:39 Andrew
> > Purtell
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > apurt...@apache.org&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; wrote:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; In response to renewed attention at
> > the
> > > > > > > > Foundation
> > > > > > > > > toward addressing
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; culturally problematic language and
> > > terms
> > > > > > often
> > > > > > > > > used in technical
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; documentation and discussion,
> several
> > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > have begun
> > > > > > > > > &gt; discussions,
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; or
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; made proposals, or started work
> along
> > > > these
> > > > > > > > lines.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; The HBase PMC began its own
> > discussion
> > > on
> > > > > > > > private@
> > > > > > > > > on June 9, 2020
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; with an
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; observation of this activity and
> this
> > > > > > > suggestion:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; There is a renewed push back
> against
> > > > > classic
> > > > > > > > > technology industry
> > > > > > > > > &gt; terms
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; that
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; have negative modern connotations.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; In the case of HBase, the following
> > > > > > > substitutions
> > > > > > > > > might be proposed:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; - Coordinator instead of master
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; - Worker instead of slave
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; Recommendations for these
> additional
> > > > > > > > substitutions
> > > > > > > > > also come up in
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; this
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; type of discussion:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; - Accept list instead of white list
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; - Deny list instead of black list
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; Unfortunately we have Master all
> over
> > > our
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > base, baked into
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; various
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; APIs and configuration variable
> > names,
> > > so
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > the necessary
> > > > > > > > > &gt; changes
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; amount to a new major release and
> > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > > cycle. It could well
> > > > > > > > > &gt; be
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; worth
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; it in the long run. We exist only
> as
> > > long
> > > > > as
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > draw a willing and
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; sufficient contributor community.
> It
> > > also
> > > > > > > > wouldn??t
> > > > > > > > > be great to have
> > > > > > > > > &gt; an
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; activist fork appear somewhere,
> even
> > if
> > > > > > > unlikely
> > > > > > > > > to be successful.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; Relevant JIRAs are:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > HBASE-12677 <
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12677
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Update
> > > > replication
> > > > > > docs
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > clarify terminology
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > HBASE-13852 <
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13852
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Replace
> > > > > master-slave
> > > > > > > > > terminology in book, site, and
javadoc
> > > > > > > > > &gt; with a
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; more
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; modern
> > > vocabulary
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -
> > HBASE-24576 <
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24576
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Changing
> > > > > "whitelist"
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "blacklist" in our docs and project
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; In response to this proposal, a
> > member
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > asked if the term
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; 'master' used by itself would be
> > fine,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > only have use of
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; 'slave'
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; in replication documentation and
> that
> > > is
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > addressed. In
> > > > > > > > > &gt; response
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; to
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; this question, others on the PMC
> > > > suggested
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > even if only
> > > > > > > > > &gt; 'master'
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; is
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; used, in this context it is still a
> > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; For folks who are surprised or
> > lacking
> > > > > > context
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the details of
> > > > > > > > > &gt; this
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; discussion, one PMC member offered
> a
> > > link
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > draft RFC as
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
background:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > >
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; There was general support for
> > removing
> > > > the
> > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > > "master" / "hmaster"
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; from
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; our code base and using the terms
> > > > > > "coordinator"
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > "leader" instead.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; In
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; the
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; context of replication, "worker"
> > makes
> > > > less
> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > and perhaps
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
"destination"
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; or "follower" would be more
> > appropriate
> > > > > > terms.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; One PMC member's thoughts on
> language
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > non-native English
> > > > > > > > > &gt; speakers
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; is
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; worth including in its entirety:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; While words like
> > > > blacklist/whitelist/slave
> > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > have those
> > > > > > > > > &gt; negative
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; references, word master might not
> > have
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > impact for non
> > > > > > > > > &gt; native
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; English speakers like myself where
> > the
> > > > > > literal
> > > > > > > > > translation to my
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; mother
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; tongue does not have this same bad
> > > > > > connotation.
> > > > > > > > > Replacing all
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; references
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; for word *master *on our
> > docs/codebase
> > > > is a
> > > > > > > huge
> > > > > > > > > effort, I guess
> > > > > > > > > &gt; such
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; a
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; decision would be more suitable for
> > > > native
> > > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > > > speakers folks,
> > > > > > > > > &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; maybe we should consider the
> opinion
> > of
> > > > > > > > > contributors from that
> > > > > > > > > &gt; ethinic
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; minority as well?
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; These are good questions for public
> > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; We have a consensus in the PMC, at
> > this
> > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > is supportive of
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; making
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; the above discussed terminology
> > > changes.
> > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > > we also have
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; concerns
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; about what it would take to
> > accomplish
> > > > > > > meaningful
> > > > > > > > > changes. Several
> > > > > > > > > &gt; on
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; the
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; PMC offered support in the form of
> > > cycles
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > review pull requests
> > > > > > > > > &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; patches, and two PMC members
> > > > offered&nbsp;
> > > > > > > > > personal bandwidth for
> > > > > > > > > &gt; creating
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; releasing new code lines as needed
> to
> > > > > > complete
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > deprecation cycle.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; Unfortunately, the terms "master"
> and
> > > > > > "hmaster"
> > > > > > > > > appear throughout
> > > > > > > > > &gt; our
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; code
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; base in class names, user facing
> API
> > > > > subject
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > our project
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
compatibility
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; guidelines, and configuration
> > variable
> > > > > names,
> > > > > > > > > which are also
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; implicated
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; by
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; compatibility guidelines given the
> > > impact
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > changes to operators
> > > > > > > > > &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; operations. The changes being
> > discussed
> > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > backwards compatible
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; changes and cannot be executed with
> > > > > swiftness
> > > > > > > > > while simultaneously
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; preserving compatibility. There
> must
> > > be a
> > > > > > > > > deprecation cycle. First,
> > > > > > > > > &gt; we
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; must
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; tag all implicated public API and
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > variables as
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; deprecated,
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; and release HBase 3 with these
> > > > deprecations
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > place. Then, we must
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; undertake rename and removal as
> > > > > appropriate,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > release the result
> > > > > > > > > &gt; as
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; HBase 4.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; One PMC member raised a question in
> > > this
> > > > > > > context
> > > > > > > > > included here in
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
entirety:
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; Are we willing to commit to rolling
> > > > through
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > major versions at a
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; pace
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; that's necessary to make this
> > > transition
> > > > as
> > > > > > > swift
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; reasonably possible?
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; This is a question for all of us.
> For
> > > the
> > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > would supervise
> > > > > > > > > &gt; the
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; effort, perhaps contribute to it,
> and
> > > > > > certainly
> > > > > > > > > vote on the release
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; candidates. For contributors and
> > > > potential
> > > > > > > > > contributors, who would
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; provide
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; the necessary patches. For
> > committers,
> > > > who
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > be required to
> > > > > > > > > &gt; review
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; and
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; commit the relevant changes.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; Although there has been some
> initial
> > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > there is no
> > > > > > > > > &gt; singular
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; proposal, or plan, or set of
> > decisions
> > > > made
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > this time. Wrestling
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; with
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; this concern and the competing
> > concerns
> > > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > with addressing it
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; (motivation for change versus
> > > motivation
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > compatibility) is a
> > > > > > > > > &gt; task
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; for
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; all of us to undertake (or not) in
> > > public
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > dev@
> > > > > > > > > and user@.
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt;
> > > > > > > > > &gt;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrew
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the
crosstalk, meaning torn
> > from
> > > > > > truth's
> > > > > > > > > decrepit hands
> > > > > > > > > &nbsp;&nbsp; - A23,
Crosstalk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Andrew
Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's
decrepit hands
- A23, Crosstalk
